H a m b u r g e r F o r s c h u n g s b e r i c h t e z u r S o z i a l p s yc h o l o g i e
H A F O S
Hamburger Forschungsberichte zur Sozialpsychologie Hamburg Social Psychology Research Papers Fachbereich Psychologie . Arbeitsbereich Sozialpsychologie Psychology Department . Institute of Social Psychology Von-Melle-Park 5 . 20146 Hamburg / Germany
8 9
Ausgabe2010 Nr.
Erich H. W itte & Valerie C. Brandt
Social Psychological Research:
The Comparison of Four Journals
Der Arbeitsbereich Sozialpsychologie an der Universität Hamburg legt seit über 15 Jahren eine Serie von Forschungsberichten (working papers) auf, die der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion dienen sollen. Die hier präsentierten Arbeiten werden normalerweise in einer überarbeiteten Fassung in anderen Werken/Zeitschriften publiziert. Die Autoren sollten daher angesprochen werden, bevor in anderen publizierten Werken auf die Forschungsberichte hingewiesen wird.
Hamburg Social Psychology Research Papers
For more than 15 years, the Institute of Social Psychology at the University of Hamburg runs its own series of working papers which are produced for discussion purposes only. These works will normally be published in a revised form subsequently. The authors should thus be contacted before referring to its contents in other published works.
Witte, Erich H. & Brandt, Valerie C. (2010). Social Psychological Research: The Comparison of Four Journals. (Forschungsbericht zur Sozialpsychologie Nr. 89). Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Arbeitsbereich Sozialpsychologie.
1
Institute of Social Psychology, University of Hamburg, Germany
2
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK
Every scientific field can be described by its typical research focus or paradigm. These research paradigms or research matrices reflect what is viewed as “normal science” in the respective field. This study aimed to find out what defines the research matrix of the typical Anglo-American social psychology journal versus the typical German social psychology journal and why the “German Journal of Social Psychology”, that was founded in the 1970ies in order to enhance application orientation and theoretical integration in social psychological research, had to resign its publication in German and reappeared in English. Twohundredandthree research articles of 4 different journals, published in either English or German, were rated according to differences in their research paradigms. Structural differences in the profiles of these journals showed that the journals published in English take a rather empirical and quantitative approach towards research while the German journals seem to show a stronger theoretical orientation and a more qualitative research approach. Patterns of the unsuccessful German journal suggest a lack of consistency and individuality compared to the other journals.
Keywords: Research matrix, research paradigm, social psychological research,
2 Introduction
Recent research has empirically shown that different scientific fields have different implicitly accepted norms as to how basic research should generally be conducted (see for example the comments about social psychology by
Kruglanski, 2001, 2004, 2006; and the reader by Lange, 2006). The fact that different disciplines operate according to different disciplinary matrices – or more traditionally paradigms - has been well-discussed in theory (Kuhn 1974, 1978, see also Hacking, 2002). Those matrices consist of principles or implicit guidelines researchers of the respective domains tend to follow. Research matrices can generally be defined as methodological aspects and research perspectives scientists use, such as empirical research, theoretical research, quantitative research, theory development, practical application, developing complex models, etc. (Lange, 2006). For example, sociologists tend to work more theoretically than psychologists, biologists and physicists. Physics
stresses the development of models more than other disciplines. Psychological research tends to focus more on quantitative methods while sociology tends to emphasise a qualitative approach (Witte & Strohmeier, in press).
Where does social psychology fit in among these domains? Traditionally, social psychology has tried to make the connection between the fields of
psychology and sociology, while focusing on the individual (Wilson & Schafer, 1978; Witte, 1996). Should social psychology therefore be expected to fall in between the sociological and the psychological research matrices (House, 1977)? If that were the case, social psychological research should value a qualitative as well as a quantitative research approach. It should also stress a theoretical orientation (Rijsman & Stroebe, 1989). Observing the development of social psychology, it can be assumed that this combination was originally the background of the discipline, but that it adapted to the psychological research matrix over time (Farr, 1996).
There was a movement in Germany and other parts of Europe in the 1970s which demanded a change in social psychology (Holzkamp, 1970; 1977; Isreal & Tajfel, 1972). A new generation of researchers in social psychology
3 brought attention to the need for a framework for research results, integrating the knowledge of the field into larger and more complex theories. They also stated that social psychology should not be a purely empirical discipline. Instead, the discipline should focus more on the application of its theoretically postulated principles. Out of the need for theoretical integration and orientation towards knowledge application, the German “Journal of Social Psychology”
(Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, “ZfSP”) was founded. Over the past few
years, the ZfSP struggled to survive and finally it had to end its publication of the version in German. In 2008, it reappeared in English. Does the ZfSP reflect the decline of the idea to form a more application-oriented and theoretically-integrated social psychology (Doll, Schütz, Six & Witte, 1994)?
Recently, the lack of theoretical integration of research results has been discussed (Kruglanski, 2001, 2004, 2006; Witte, 2008), but the need to publish results quickly seems to lead to the tendency of significance testing against a random model (null hypothesis) rather than to the development of complex models or theoretical frameworks in psychology in general. This phenomenon seems to be most salient in the U.S. and accordingly, it should be reflected in American research journals which are regarded as the most prestigious within the field of social psychology.
Therefore, we were interested not only in finding out in how far the psychological matrix also applies to social psychology in general, but also whether there is a difference between American and German social
psychological research as it appears published in representative journals (see also Zajonc, 1989 about different styles of explanation). One aim of this study was to find out whether the German “Journal of Social Psychology” (ZfSP) still reflected the ideas it was founded for and what caused its decline. According to the cultural and historical differences between Germany and the United States as discussed above, it seems likely that there is a difference in quantitative orientation between the German and the American journals, the American journals being more oriented towards quantitative testing. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the ZfSP would reflect a more theoretical and application-oriented approach to research. For the following study, four journals were
4 picked that can be considered representative of the main cultural aspects as discussed above.
The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) is very
influential in the international research community and represents the American approach to social psychological research. The European Journal of Social
Psychology (EJSP) reflects a diverse cultural background and thus should be
influenced by different research values. However, the journal is published in English and takes an international stance. Consequently, it was of interest to find out how this would be reflected in the EJSP research matrix in comparison with the JPSP and the German journals. An additional two journals in German language were chosen to be investigated. The ZfSP, founded during the movement in the 1970ies, and the “Cologne Journal of Sociology and Social
Psychology” (“KZfSS”, “Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie”)
as the successful German counterpart to the ZfSP. This study aimed to assess whether the ZfSP had held on to the principles it was founded upon and
whether these principles caused differences between the ZfSP and the English journals but also between the ZfSP and the KZfSS. Another question posed was why the KZfSS is still successful in contrast to the ZfSP, perhaps because of its integration into sociology.
Method
To be able to assess different aspects or foci of social psychological research, an instrument was needed that could capture a wide variety of research foci presented by a broad range of research articles. Also, the instrument needed to reflect methodological matrices as exhaustively as possible. For this purpose, a rating scale for research articles was developed in spring 2008. Previously, a literature review was conducted to determine how research can generally be described in order to develop a scale which could assess the broadest view possible on research foci. Initially, a wide range of scientific literature concerning theory of science, philosophy of science, and methodology of science was reviewed. Adjectives that were used to describe or
5 classify scientific methods were then extracted from the literature. Secondly, the extracted adjectives were clustered by equivalent meaning, thus categories were built that summarised adjectives with similar meanings. In the last step, the categories were named after the general concept they represented and, if necessary, provided with a description of the category.
It turned out that the so developed categories could be divided into two different item lists. Items in the first list focused on concrete aspects of research, the “how” question (e.g. empirical research, theoretical research, testing causal relationships, qualitative research, quantitative research and single case studies). Items in the second list focused on higher goals of research, the “why” question (e.g. developing/testing theories, developing/testing models, and developing/testing practical application.).
All in all, 10 distinct categories suitable to describe psychological research were identified and were expressed in the following questions: “How much did the research focus on: 1. empirical research, 2. theoretical research, 3. quantitative research, 4. testing causal relationships, 5. single case studies, 6. qualitative research, 7. testing existing theories, 8. developing new theories, 9. practical application and 10. developing complex models?”.
In the process of turning the categories into items for a rating scale, every category was operationalized as a question that could be rated on a 5-point scale. Each 5-point of the scale was specified verbally. For example: The category developing theories was translated into the question “Did the authors work on developing a new theory?”
Rating scale:
1. There were no abstract assumptions derived from the data
2. The discussion included suggestions for further development of a theory 3. Inductive reasoning from the general conclusions in the data exceed the
observed results only marginally, low abstraction-level
4. The authors present inductive or deductive reasons for further abstraction of their assumptions. The intention to draw universally valid conclusions is visible in the design of the study
6 5. In addition to 4, high level of abstraction and wealth of information. The authors try to meet highest criteria for universal validity and work with more than one method.
Eight categories were turned into questions with such a rating scale. However, two categories (empirical research and theoretical research) were operationalized differently, and they were not rated on a 5-point scale. The category empirical research was assessed by the aspects: a) number of studies presented in the article and b) number and type of sample used in these studies. The category theoretical research was assessed by the questions: a) relative length of methodological section, b) relative length of theoretical section and c) number of studies cited in the theoretical section.
Also the four categories quantitative research, testing causal relationships,
single case studies (coded inversely) and qualitative research (coded inversely)
were later combined and treated as one scale (QQ-scale) in the data analysis, because they were highly correlated (Cronbach‟s α = .78). This is the result of “normal science” in social psychology in the manner described by Kuhn (1978) in social psychology.
With the so developed rating scale, 203 articles from the four journals mentioned in the theoretical section were rated. Impact factors for 2007 were: JPSP: 4.51, EJSP: 1.57, KZfSS: .61, ZfSP: .40. These impact factors are also indicators of normal science‟s centrality during a period in social psychology. Obviously, the ZfSP is the least influential journal which could no longer survive from the perspective of the concept of normal science. For each of the journals, all articles of the year 2007 were used for the ratings. For the German journals (KZfSS and ZfSP), additional articles from 2006 were rated to reach a comparable sample size. All articles were accessed from the internet via the university library. Overall, articles were rated by three trained raters. Before rating the sample used in this study, 12 articles from a variety of backgrounds were pre-rated and ratings were discussed to assure the rating scales‟ face validity. Each article was rated by two raters independently. Inter-rater reliability washigh across raters (r = .973 – r = .991).
7 Results
To assess the structural differences between the journals‟ articles concerning the 10 research categories, all variables within each journal were correlated. The resulting correlation matrices were then correlated across journals. This is an alternative to factor analyses which avoids the problems of extraction, rotation and comparison of the similarity between the rotated factors.
The results show underlying correlation patterns reflecting structural differences and similarities between journals (see Table 1). In line with the theoretical assumptions discussed above, KZfSS and ZfSP, both published in German language and sharing the same cultural background, show the highest correlation (r = .66), followed by JPSP and EJSP, published in English and having the highest impact factors of the four journals, though not the same cultural background (r = .63). Correlations between the American JPSP and the German journals are relatively low, r =.34 for KZfSS and r = .32 for ZfSP. The correlation between the European Journal EJSP and the German KZfSS, sharing a similar cultural background but being published in different languages, was r = .47. However, the European EJSP and the German ZfSP, only show a correlation of r = .37 which is almost as low as the correlation between the American JPSP and the German journals.
Table 1: Correlation between the Correlational Matrices across Journals
EJSP JPSP KZfSS ZfSP
EJSP 1
JPSP .63 1
KZfSS .47 .34 1
ZfSP .37 .32 .66 1
To further clarify the different research patterns, differences of the mean ratings represented by the four journals, were analyzed conducting analyses of variance for the 10 categories of social psychological research. One-way ANOVAS showed that the four journals differed significantly in the following aspects: Average number of studies per article (N = 203, df = 3, F = 46.5, p <
8 .001), relative length of theoretical section (N = 203, df = 3, F = 23.29, p < .001), relative length of methodological section (N = 203, df = 3, F = 4.74, p < .01), number of citations (N = 203, df = 3, F = 3.28, p = .02), testing theories (N = 203, df = 3, F = 4.57, p < 01) development of theories (N = 203, df = 3, F = 5.76,
p = .001), practical orientation (N = 203, df = 3, F = 6.1, p = .001) and qualitative
vs. quantitative orientation of studies (N = 203, df = 3, F = 30.37, p < .001). To further asses how much the journals differed from each other in each aspect, individual t-tests were performed for all variables. They revealed the following results:
Number of Studies
On average, articles in JPSP contained the highest number of studies per article. JPSP (M = 3.33) articles comprised significantly more studies per article than did EJSP (M = 1.85), which contained the second highest number of studies per article (t = 7.46, p < .001). ZfSP, in third place (M = 1.42), differed significantly from EJSP (t = -2.04, p< .05). KZfSS (M = .84) contained the least number of studies per article, significantly less than ZfSP (t = -2.72, p = .01). In congruence with the theoretical assumptions layed out in the theoretical section, it can be concluded that JPSP emphasises an empirical approach to research, publishing articles that contain an average of 3 studies per article. In comparison, KZfSS takes a more theoretical position, not even quite reaching an average of one study per article, indicating some articles published there are purely theoretical. EJSP and ZfSP lie in between the other two journals (see Fig. 1).
9
Figure 1: Profiles of all Journals
Theory Section
JPSP differs from the other journals in that its articles have the shortest theoretical section relative to article length. In second place follows EJSP (M
JPSP =.18, MEJSP = .22, t = -3.85, p < .001). ZfSP has a mean theoretical section
of MZfSP = .31 and differs significantly from the EJSP (t = 2.50, p = .02). KZfSS
has a mean theoretical section of MKZfSS = .35 which is the longest theoretical
section compared with all other journals, although the difference between KZfSS and the mean for ZfSP did not reach significance. Again, JPSP and KZfSS are the two journals that differ the most from each other in respect to their theoretical elaboration of research findings, with KZfSS emphasising theoretical orientation (t = -5.49, p < .001).
Developing and testing theories
Results obtained in this category show that ZfSP focuses significantly less on theory development than JPSP (t = -3.19, p < .01) and EJSP (t = -2.41,
p = .02). Also, KZfSS shows significantly less focus on theory development than
10 theories significantly more than KZfSS (t = 2.38, p < .05) and ZfSP (t = 2.60, p < .05). Neither the differences between JPSP and EJSP nor between KZfSS and ZfSP reached significance.
Methods section
The journals published in English show a significant difference in length of their methods sections compared to the German journals in that their methods sections are significantly longer. For example, EJSP has a significantly longer methods section than KZfSS (t = 2.33, p < .05) and ZfSP (t = 2.23, p < .05). Neither JPSP and EJSP nor KZfSS and ZfSP differ significantly from each other in length of methods section.
Application
ZfSP was the only journal that had a significantly greater orientation towards application than all other journals (the closest was JPSP; t = 3.23, p < .01).
QQ scale
The difference between the German journals and the journals in English language became most apparent in this category. On a scale from 1-5, the mean quantitative orientation of research articles was: MJPSP = 4.53, MEJSP =
4.51, MKZfSS = 3.68, MZfSP = 3.55. Neither the English journals JPSP and EJSP
nor the German journals KZfSS and ZfSP differed significantly from each other. However, the English journals differed significantly from the German journals, with the English journals scoring higher in the quantitative direction (EJSP vs. KZfSS: t = 4.29, p < .001, EJSP vs. ZfSP: t = 5.35, p < .001, JPSP vs. KZfSS: t = 4.46, p < .001, JPSP vs. ZfSP: t = 5.54, p < .001).
Sample type
In a next step the sample types typically studied in the articles were analyzed per journal. While JPSP and EJSP typically published studies using student samples (PJPSP = 88%, PEJSP = 93 %), KZfSS published mainly studies
11 investigating non-student samples (46%) or representative samples of the German population (32%). Of the studies published in ZfSP, 38% were student samples, 32% were nonstudent samples. A χ2
test showed a significantly uneven distribution of sample types across journals (² = 192.71, df = 6, p <
.001). Thus it can be concluded that the journals oriented towards Anglo-American research standards publish articles with a quantitative research approach more so than the German journals do, and they also use significantly more student samples than do the German journals (see Arnett, 2008).
Table 2: Sample Types of the Four Journals
Sample type: EJSP JPSP KZfSS ZfSP
Student 112 225 1 14
Population 4 7 13 12
Representative 3 8 9 2
Total 121 257 28 37
To further investigate what defines the “typical” kind of research published in JPSP, EJSP, KZfSS or ZfSP, the research patterns of the prototypical articles of each journal were assessed. For the purpose of filtering out articles which could be considered typical of the respective journals, the dataset for each journal was transposed so that each article now formed a variable. Then a factor analysis was conducted for each journal individually. All articles that loaded a ≥ .70 on the general factor were defined as prototypical of a journal.
The factor analysis for EJSP showed a clear one-factor solution with 72% of all cases loading (a ≥.70) on the first factor. The factor analysis for JPSP also revealed a one-factor solution with 58% of all cases loading ( a ≥ .70) on the first factor, and no cases loading a ≥.70 on the second factor. The factor analysis for KZfSS showed that 41% of all articles loaded (a ≥.70) on the first factor and 34% on the second. Ultimately, a two-factor solution for the KZfSS was chosen. The factor analysis for ZfSP showed that 53% of all articles fulfilled the criterion for the first factor, 23% for the second. Although this result is not as clear as the others, the screeplot supports a one-factor solution. For all further
12 analyses only those articles that were representative or prototypical of the respective journal were used. Following the two-factor solution for the KZfSS, this journal was divided into two prototypes “KZfSS1” and “KZfSS2” for further analyses.
Correlations between the correlation matrices of the journal prototypes revealed patterns of structural similarities and differences (see above). Generally, the prototypes showed high typicality of the journal they represented (EJSP: r = .87, JPSP: r = .75, KZfSS2: r = .86) except for the KZfSS1 and ZfSP prototypes. The correlation between the ZfSP prototype and ZfSP journal was r = .45, the correlation between the KZfSS1 prototype and the whole KZfSS journal was r = .17. Compared to this result, correlations between the KZfSS1 prototype and JPSP were much higher (r = .40) and so were correlations between the ZfSP prototype and JPSP (r = .55). The KZfSS2 prototype showed a moderate correlation with ZfSP (r = .47). The ZfSP prototype showed moderate correlations with all other journals (r = .32 – r = .55).
All prototypes showed similarly high correlations with the JPSP prototype (EJSP: r = .45, KZfSS1: r = .39, ZfSP: r = .51) except for the KZfSS2 prototype (r = .18). The EJSP prototype was structurally most similar to the JPSP prototype (r = .45), correlations with all other prototypes were below r = .20. The lowest correlation was found between the two different prototypes of KZfSS (r = .09). Interestingly, it seems that approximately 40% of all articles in the German KZfSS are structurally similar to the English JPSP, and that approximately 30% of the articles in the German KZfSS represent a completely different research matrix that does not show substantial structural similarity with any of the other prototypes. Its highest correlation was found with the ZfSP prototype (r = .21). The ZfSP prototype showed a substantial similarity to the JPSP prototype (r = .51) this correlation was even higher than the correlation of the ZfSP prototype with the ZfSP journal itself (r = .45). Thus, it seems that the EJSP prototype, the ZfSP prototype and the KZfSS1 prototype are structurally close to the JPSP prototype. These results were expected for EJSP but not for ZfSP. However, the ZfSP prototype showing moderate structural similarity to all journals even to the ZfSP itself, could be interpreted as an indicator of inhomogeniety within the
13 journal. In contrast to ZfSP, KZfSS is represented by two prototypes, of which the KZfSS2 prototype shows a much higher typicality of the KZfSS journal and also seems to represent a completely individual research matrix.
In order to establish profiles that reflected the “typical” JPSP, EJSP, KZfSS1, KZfSS2 and ZfSP (Figure 2), one-way ANOVAs for all important variables were run. ANOVAs showed differences between the journal prototypes in the following aspects: Number of studies per article (N = 131, df = 4, F = 42.73, p < .001, d = 2.33), relative length of theoretical section (N = 131,
df = 4, F = 18.38, p < .001, d = 1.53), relative length of methodological section (N = 131, df = 4, F = 4.96, p = .001, d = 0.79), development of theories (N = 131, df = 4, F = 2.93, p < .05, d = 0.61), testing theories (N = 131, df = 4, F = 2.71, p = < .05, d = 0.59), application orientation (N = 131, df = 4, F = 2.58, p < .05, d = 0.57)and qualitative vs. quantitative orientation of studies (N = 131, df = 4, F = 27.31, p < .001, d= 1.86).
Figure 2: Profiles of all Prototypes
Overall, the profile of the different journals that was created from the prototypical articles (see figure 2) looks very similar to the profile of these
14 journals of the non-prototypical articles (see figure 1). However, there were a few interesting changes concerning the two KZfSS prototypes. KZfSS2 had the lowest mean number of studies per article (M = .47) and it significantly differed from KZfSS1 (M = 1.03, t = -3.48, p < .01), which had the second lowest mean number of studies per article of all journals. KZfSS2 also had the longest mean relative theoretical section (M = .45), however the difference between it and KZfSS1 did not reach significance (M = .30, t = -1.89, p = .09). The KZfSS2 showed significantly more qualitatively oriented articles than did the KZfSS1 (t = -2.86, p < .05).
Discussion
The questions addressed in this study were concerned with what defines the research matrix of the typical Anglo-American social psychology journal versus the typical German social psychology journal, as well as what differentiates the successful German and English journals from the unsuccessful ZfSP. Furthermore, it was assessed whether the ZfSP matrix still reflects the values that were originally intended by its founders.
General differences in the profiles of the individual journals show that the American JPSP takes a very empirical approach towards research. Articles in the JPSP contain an average of three studies per article mainly investigating student samples. The theory section is rather short and the overall approach focuses on quantitative research. This could be interpreted as a concentration on quantitative data in social psychological research.
The KZfSS seems to reflect two different approaches or research matrices. One is comparable to the “American” research pattern shown by the JPSP. Approximately 40% of the articles published in KZfSS reflect a quantitative research approach with little theoretical integration. Yet about 30% of the articles typical of KZfSS are represented by the second prototype, and they show a strong theoretical orientation and a more qualitative research approach. The fact that the mean number of studies per article does not even reach M = 1 indicates that some articles are purely theoretical. Theoretical integration is generally pronounced in these articles more than in all other journals. This shows that KZfSS is influenced by the sociological research
15 matrix more than the other journals studied. The successful integration of psychological and sociological research matrices could be the reason why KZfSS is still successful in comparison with ZfSP. Furthermore, the KZfSS investigates mainly (~78%) non-student samples or representative samples, instead of focusing mainly on student samples, which sets it apart from the journals published in English, as well as the ZfSP.
The article patterns in ZfSP still reflect the ideas this journal was originally based on. The ZfSP is significantly more application-oriented than all other journals. However, theoretical elaboration does not reach the KZfSS standard. All in all, what sets ZfSP apart from the other journals is a lack of homogeneity which became apparent in the factor analysis, as well as a lack of individuality reflected in the prototypes-profile. These may be possible reasons for its decline.
Lastly, EJSP seems to emphasise an American approach despite its European background. This journal does not differ in many aspects from JPSP and can also be judged as data-driven. Publishing in English seems to have a greater influence on the type of articles published than the cultural background of the journal. Generally, European-based research in social psychology seems to lack the diversity we expected. Currently, the conformity process appears to have eliminated minority influences. In the introduction of an EJSP´s special issue more than 20 years ago, the editors hoped for a development of “two voices” to resolve what has been called the “crisis of social psychology” (Rijsman & Stroebe, 1989). There could be a competition between the American and the European social psychology with different disciplinary matrices. After one generation, which lasts about 20 years, the competition has a winner (JPSP) and a looser (ZfSP). Perhaps we need a more balanced social psychology with different voices (Krueger & Funder, 2003) and not an elimination of the minority. The general effects of such a research matrix are not so overwhelming with an average effect size of r =.21 over a wide range of studies in social psychology in the last hundred years (Richard, Bond & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).
16 It can be concluded that there is still a need for theoretical integration and especially for application orientation in social psychological research. However, the results for JPSP and EJSP suggest that purely quantitative studies with samples of undergraduate psychology students will more likely lead to success on part of the researcher. In order to be successful, the new generation of researchers will need to produce a large number of articles that are based on quantitative designs (Wintre, North & Sugar, 2001). Yet without theoretical integration, there will be a large amount of single effects which cannot be practically implemented and thus have little meaning when it comes to the application of social psychological findings - just that was the content of the very last article in the ZfSP (Scholl, 2007). If researchers in social psychology are still striving to apply acquired knowledge to “real-world problems”, there will be a need to generate the possibility for researchers to work on larger theories to integrate research results in a sensible way. The results for KZfSS suggest that at least in Germany there is still an interest in articles that make a connection between the fields of sociology and psychology. This represents to some extent the two voices of social psychology found in the American and European tradition discussed 20 years ago (Rijsman & Stroebe, 1989), but based on the crisis discussion in the beginning „70s when the ZfSP was founded in 1970. However, this discussion of a crisis is much older and goes at least back to Bühler (1927) and Lewin (1927). These similarities of the discussions have been pronounced by Miriam Lewin (1977), Kurt Lewin´s daughter. The elimination of the ZfSP could be a Pyrrhic victory of normal science in social psychology. Strategic paradigm enrichment with different voices might be a better future than the conformity to specific disciplinary matrix patterns (Witte, 1996). The extinction out of a single journal is only a symptom of such a conformity process in normal science (Kuhn, 1978).
17 References
Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602-614.
Bühler, K. (1927). Die Krise der Psychologie. [The crisis of psychology]. Jena: Fischer.
Doll, J., Schütz, H., Six, B. & Witte,E.H. (1994). Einstellungen, Gruppen,
Methoden und Wissenschaftsforschung: vier Publikationsschwerpunkte der Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. [Attitudes, groups, methods and theory of science: four centers of publication in the ZfS]. Zeitschrift für
Sozialpsychologie, 25, 18-35.
Farr, R. M. (1996). The roots of modern social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge; MA: Harvard University
Press.
Holzkamp, K. (1970). Wissenschaftstheoretische Voraussetzungen kritisch- emanzipatorischer Psychologie.[ Philosophy of science´s assumptions of a critical-emancipatory psychology]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 1, 5-21 and 109-141.
Holzkamp, K. (1977). Die Überwindung der wissenschaftlichen Beliebigkeit psychologischer Theorien durch die Kritische Psychologie. [Overcoming the scientific arbitrariness of psychological theories through Critical Psychology]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 8, 1-22 and 78-97.
House, J. S. (1977). The three faces of social psychology. Sociometry, 40, 161-177.
Israel, J. & Tajfel, H. (Eds.) (1972). The context of social psychology: A critical
assessment. London: Academic Press.
Krueger,J.I. & Funder, D.C. (2003). Towards a balanced Social Psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures fort he problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 313-327.
18 Kruglanski, A. W. (2001). That “Vision Thing”. The state of theory in Social and
Personality Psychology at the edge of the new millennium. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 871-875.
Kruglanski, A.W. (2004). The quest of the gist: On challenges of going abstract in Social and Personality Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology,
8, 156-163.
Kruglanski, A.W. (2006). Theories as bridges. In P. van Lange (Ed.), Bridging Social Psychology (pp. 21-32). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Kuhn, T. S. (1974). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Die Entstehung des Neuen.[The genesis of the new]. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Lange, P. van (Ed.). (2006). Bridging Social Psychology. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Lewin, K. (1927). Gesetz und Experiment in der Psychologie. Symposion, 1,
375-421.
Lewin, M. A. (1977). Kurt Lewin's view of social psychology: The crisis of 1977 and the crisis of 1927. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 3, 159-172.
Richard, F. D., Bond,C.F. Jr. & Stokes-Zoota, J.J. (2003). One Hundred years of Social Psychology quantitatively described. Review of General
Psychology, 7, 331-363.
Rijsman, J. & Stroebe, W. (1989). The two social psychologies or whatever happened to the crisis? European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 339-343.
Scholl, W. (2007). Plädoyer für eine sozialere und dadurch interdisziplinärere und anwendbarere Sozialpsychologie. [A plea for a more social, more interdisciplinary, and better applicable Social Psychology]. Zeitschrift für
Sozialpsychology, 38, 285-296.
Wilson, D. W., Schafer, R. B. (1978). Is social psychology interdisciplinary?
19 Wintre, M. G., North, C. & Sugar, L.A. (2001). Psychologist´s response to
criticisms about research based on undergraduate participants: A developmental perspective. Canadian Psychology, 42, 216-225.
Witte, E. H. (1996a). Small group research and the crisis of Social Psychology: An introduction. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group
behaviour (Vol. II, pp. 1-8). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Witte, E. H. (2008). Theorienentwicklung und –konstruktion in der
Sozialpsychologie. [Theory development and construction in Social Psychology.] In E. H. Witte (Ed.) Entwicklungsperspektiven der
Sozialpsychologie. [ Developmental perspectives of Social Psychology.]
(pp. 172-188). Lengerich: Pabst.
Witte, E. H. & Strohmeier, C. E. (in press). Forschung in der Psychologie: Ihre disziplinäre Matrix im Vergleich zur Physik, Biologie und Sozialwissenschaft. [Research in Psychology: Its Disciplinary Matrix as Compared to Physics, Biology, and Social Science]. Psychologische
Rundschau, in press.
Zajonc, R.B. (1989). Styles of Explanation in Social Psychology. European
-HAFOS-
Die Hamburger Forschungsberichte zur Sozialpsychologie werden herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Erich H. Witte und können als gedruckte Version über die folgende Adresse bezogen werden:
Prof. Dr. Erich H. Witte Universität Hamburg Arbeitsbereich Sozialpychologie
Von-Melle-Park 5 20146 Hamburg
E-Mail: witte_e_h@uni-hamburg.de
Die Mehrzahl der Forschungsberichte steht als PDF ( ) – Datei zum Download zur Verfügung unter: http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/fb16/absozpsy/hafos.html
HAFOS Nr. 1 1992
Witte, E.H.: The extended group situation theory (EGST), social decision schemes, models of the structure of communication in small groups, and specific effects of minority influences and selfcategorization: An integration.
HAFOS Nr. 2 1992
Witte, E.H., & Scherm, M.: Technikfolgenabschätzung und Gentechnologie – Die exemplarische Prüfung eines Experten-berichts auf psychologische Konsistenz und Nachvollziehbarkeit.
HAFOS Nr. 3 1992
Witte, E.H.: Dynamic models of social influence in small group research. HAFOS Nr. 4
1993
Witte, E.H., & Sonn, E.: Trennungs- und Scheidungsberatung aus der Sicht der Betroffenen: Eine empirische Erhebung.
HAFOSNr. 5 1993
Witte, E.H., Dudek, I., & Hesse, T.: Personale und soziale Identität von ost- und westdeutschen Arbeitnehmern und ihre Auswirkung auf die
Intergruppenbeziehungen. HAFOS Nr. 6
1993
Hackel, S., Zülske, G., Witte, E.H., & Raum, H.: Ein Vergleichberufsrelevanter Eigenschaften von „ost- und westdeutschen“ Arbeitnehmern am Beispiel der Mechaniker.
HAFOS Nr. 7 1994
Witte, E.H.: The Social Representation as a consensual system and correlation analysis.
HAFOS Nr. 8 1994
Doll, J., Mentz, M., & Witte, E.H.: Einstellungen zur Liebe und Partnerschaft: vier Bindungsstile.
HAFOS Nr. 9 1994
Witte, E.H.: A statistical inference strategy (FOSTIS): A non- confounded hybrid theory. HAFOS Nr. 10
1995
Witte, E.H., & Doll, J.: Soziale Kognition und empirische Ethikforschung: Zur Rechtfertigung von Handlungen.
HAFOS Nr. 11 1995
Witte, E.H.: Zum Stand der Kleingruppenforschung. HAFOS Nr. 12
1995
Witte, E.H., & Wilhelm, M.: Vorstellungen über Erwartungen an eine Vorlesung zur Sozialpsychologie.
HAFOS Nr. 13 1995
Witte, E.H.: Die Zulassung zum Studium der Psychologie im WS 1994/95 in Hamburg: Ergebnisse über die soziodemographische Verteilung der Erstsemester und die Diskussion denkbarer Konsequenzen.
HAFOS Nr. 14 1995
Witte, E.H., & Sperling, H.: Wie Liebesbeziehungen den Umgang mit Freunden geregelt wünschen: Ein Vergleich zwischen den Geschlechtern.
HAFOS Nr. 15 1995
Witte, E.H.: Soziodemographische Merkmale der DoktorandInnen in Psychologie am Hamburger Fachbereich.
HAFOS Nr. 16 1996
Witte, E.H.: Wertewandel in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (West) zwischen 1973 bis 1992: Alternative Interpretationen zum Ingelhart-Index.
HAFOS Nr. 17 1996
Witte, E.H., & Lecher, Silke: Systematik von Beurteilungskriterien für die Güte von Gruppenleistungen.
HAFOS Nr. 18 1997
Witte, E.H., & Kaufman, J.: The Stepwise Hybrid Statistical InferenceStrategy: FOSTIS. HAFOS Nr. 19
1997
Kliche, T., Adam, S., & Jannink, H.: „Bedroht uns der Islam?“ Die Konstruktion eines „postmodernen“ Feindbildes am Beispiel Algerien in zwei exemplarischen Diskursanalysen.
HAFOS Nr. 20 1998
Witte, E.H., & Pablocki, Frank von: Unterschiede im Handlungsstil: Lage- und Handlungsorientierung in Problemlöse-Dyaden.
HAFOS Nr. 23 1999
Porschke, C.: Zur Entwicklung unternehmensspezifischer Anforderungsprofile mit der Repertory Grid Technik: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie.
HAFOS Nr. 24 2000
Witte, E.H., & Putz, Claudia: Routinebesprechungen: Deskription, Intention, Evaluation und Differenzierung.
HAFOS Nr. 25 2000
Witte, E.H.: Kundenorientierung: Eine Managementaufgabe mit psychologischem Feingefühl
HAFOS Nr. 26 2000
Witte, E.H.: Die Entwicklung einer Gruppenmoderationstheorie für Projektgruppen und ihre empirische Überprüfung.
HAFOS Nr. 27 2000
Figen Karadayi: Exposure to a different culture and related autonomousself: A comparison of remigrant and nonmigrant turkish lateadolescent groups. HAFOS Nr. 28
2000
Witte, E.H., & Raphael, Christiane: Alter, Geschlecht und Informationsstand als Determinanten der Einstellung zum Euro
HAFOS Nr. 29 2001
Witte, Erich H.: Bindung und romantische Liebe: SozialpsychologischeAspekte der Bindungstheorie.
HAFOS Nr. 30 2001
Witte, Erich H.: Theorien zur sozialen Macht. HAFOS Nr. 31
2001
Witte, Erich H.: Wertewandel, wirtschaftliche Prozesse und Wählerverhalten:
Sozialpsychologische Gesetzmäßigkeiten zur Erklärung und Bekämpfung von Ausländerfeindlichkeit.
HAFOS Nr. 32 2001
Lecher, Silke, & Witte, E. H.: FORMOD und PROMOD: State of the Art der Moderation des Gruppenproblemlösens.
HAFOS Nr. 33 2001
Porschke, Christine, & Witte, E. H.: Psychologische Faktoren der Steuergerechtigkeit. HAFOS Nr. 34
2001
Tettenborn, Annette: Zeitgemäßes Lernen an der Universität: „Neuer Wein in alte Schläuche?“
HAFOS Nr. 35 2001
Witte, Erich H.: Wirtschaftspsychologische Ursachen politischerProzesse: Empirische Belege und ein theoretisches Konzept.
HAFOS Nr. 36 2001
Witte, Erich H.: Der Köhler-Effekt: Begriffsbildung, seine empirische Überprüfung und ein theoretisches Konzept.
HAFOS Nr. 37 2001
Diverse: Zwischen Couch, Coaching und ‚neuen kleinen Feldern‘ – Perspektiven Angewandter Psychologie. Beiträge zum 75jährigen Jubiläum der Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Psychologie e.V.
HAFOS Nr. 38 2001
Witte, Erich H.: Ethische Grundpositionen und ihre Bedeutung bei der Rechtfertigung beruflicher Handlungen.
HAFOS Nr. 39 2002
Witte, Erich H.: The group polarization effect: To be or not to be? HAFOS Nr. 40
2002
Witte, Erich H.: The Köhler Effect: Definition of terms, empirical observations and theoretical concept.
HAFOS Nr. 41 2002
Witte, Erich H.: Das Hamburger Hochschulmodernisierungsgesetz: Eine wissenschaftlich-psychologische Betrachtung.
HAFOS Nr. 42 2003
Witte, Erich H.: Classical ethical positions and their relevance in justifying behavior: A model of pescriptive attribution.
HAFOS Nr. 43 2003
Witte, Erich H.: Wie verändern Globalisierungsprozesse den Menschen in seinen Beziehungen? Eine sozialpsychologische Perspektive.
HAFOS Nr. 44 2003
Witte, Erich H., & Putz, Claudia: Paarbeziehungen als Mikrosysteme: Ableitung und empirische Prüfung von theoretischen Annahmen.
HAFOS Nr. 45 2003
Trepte, S., Ranné, N., & Becker, M.: Patterns of New Media Adoption in a World of Hybrid Media.
HAFOS Nr. 46 2003
Trepte, S.: Daily as Self-Realization – An Empirical Study on Audience Participation in Daily Talk Shows.
HAFOS Nr. 47 2003
Witte, Erich H., & Engelhardt, Gabriele: Gruppen-entscheidungen bei „Hidden Profiles“ ‚Shared View‘ – Effekt oder kollektiver ‚Primacy‘-Effekt? Empirische
Ergebnisse und theoretische Anmerkungen. HAFOS Nr: 48
2003
Witte, Erich H., & Raphael, Christiane: Der EURO, der junge Konsument und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung.
HAFOS Nr. 49 2003
Witte, Erich H., & Scheffer, Julia: Die Steuerreform und der Konsumanreiz: Eine wirtschaftlichspsychologische Betrachtung.
HAFOS Nr. 50 2004
Witte, Erich H.: Theorienentwicklung und –konstruktion in der Sozialpsychologie. HAFOS Nr. 51
2004
Witte, Erich H., & Janetzki, Evelyn: Fragebogenentwicklung zur Lebensgestaltung. HAFOS Nr. 52
2004
Witte, Erich H., & Engelhardt, Gabriele: Towards a theoretically based Group Facilitation Technique for Project Teams
HAFOS Nr. 53 2004
Scheffer, Julia, & Witte, Erich H.: Der Einfluss von makrosozialer wirtschaftlicher Bedrohung auf die Leistungsfähigkeit.
empirische Analyse des Einflusses verschiedener Rollen. HAFOS Nr. 56
2005
Witte, Erich H.: Sozialisationstheorien. HAFOS Nr. 57
2005
van Quaquebeke, Niels, & Plum, Nina: Outside-In: Eine Perspektivbestimmung zum Umgang mit Wissen in der Sozialpsychologie.
HAFOS Nr. 58 2005
Witte, Erich H., & Heitkamp, Imke: Quantitative Rekonstruktionen (Retrognosen) als Instrument der Theorienbildung in der Sozialpsychologie.
HAFOS Nr. 59 2005
Witte, Erich H., van Quaquebeke, Niels, & Mölders, Christina:
Mehrwertsteuererhöhung: Eine wirtschaftspsychologische Analyse ihrer Wirkung.
HAFOS Nr. 60 2005
Trepte, Sabine, & Scherer, Helmut: What do they really know? Differentiating Opinion Leaders into ‘Dazzlers’ and ‘Experts’.
HAFOS Nr. 61 2005
Witte, Erich H., & Heitkamp, Imke: Empirical research on ethics: The influence of social roles on decisions and on their ethical justification.
HAFOS Nr. 62 2005
Witte, Erich H., & Heitkamp, Imke, & Wolfram, Maren: Zur simulierten Rechtfertigung wirtschaftlicher und medizinischer Entscheidungen in Ethikkommissionen: Eine empirische Analyse des Einflusses von Rollenerwartungen.
HAFOS Nr. 63 2005
Witte, Erich H.: Macht. HAFOS Nr. 64
2005
Witte, Erich H.: Soziale Beziehungen, Gruppen- und Intergruppenprozesse. HAFOS Nr. 65
2006
Witte, Erich H.: Gruppenleistungen. Eine Gegenüberstellung von ultimater und proximater Beurteilung.
HAFOS Nr. 66 2006
Witte, Erich H.: Interpersonale Kommunikation, Beziehungen und Gruppen-Kollaboration.
HAFOS Nr. 67 2006
Witte, Erich H.: Group performance: A confrontation of a proximate with an ultimate evaluation.
HAFOS Nr. 68 2006
Witte, Erich H.: Das Studierverhalten von DiplompsychologInnen in Hamburg und mögliche Hinweise für die Konzeption eines Bachelor/Master-Studiums. HAFOS Nr. 69
2006
Witte, Erich H., & Mölders, Christina: Einkommensteuergesetz: Begründung der vorhandenen Ausnahmetatbestände ethisch bedenklich.
HAFOS Nr. 70 2006
Witte, Erich H., & Halverscheid, Susanne: Justification of War and Terrorism. A Comparative Case Study examining Ethical Positions based on Prescriptive Attribution Theory.
HAFOS Nr. 71 2006
van Quaquebeke, Niels, Zenker, Sebastian, & Eckloff, Tilman: Who cares? The importance of interpersonal respect in employees’ work values and organizational practices.
HAFOS Nr. 72 2006
van Quaquebeke, Niels, & Brodbeck, F. C.: Sind Sie mein Führungstyp? Entwicklung und Validierung zweier Instrumente zur Erfassung von
Führungskraft-Kategorisierung auf der Basis von impliziten Führungstheorien. HAFOS Nr. 73
2007
Unger, Dana & Witte, Erich H.: Virtuelle Teams – Geringe Kosten, geringer Nutzen? Zur Leistungsverbesserung von Kleingruppen beim Problemlösen durch elektronische Moderation.
HAFOS Nr. 74 2007
Hilkenmeier, Frederic, & van Treeck, Joost: Determinanten des Verhaltens: Ver-haltensprädiktion durch eine Weiterentwicklung der Theory of Planned Behavior.
HAFOS Nr. 75 2007
Witte, Erich H., &Feldhusen, Frauke R.: Can PROMOD Prevent the Escalation of Commitment? The Effect of a Group Facilitation Technique on an Investment Decision
HAFOS Nr. 76 2007
Witte, Erich H., Poser, Bettina, & Strohmeier, Charlotte: Konsensueller Sadomaso-chismus. Eine empirische Prüfung von Bindungsstil und Sozialisationseinfluss. HAFOS Nr. 77
2007
Reinecke, Leonard, Trepte, Sabine, & Behr, Katharina-Maria: Why Girls Play. Results of a Qualitative Interview Study with Female Video Game Players.
HAFOS Nr. 78 2007
Trepte, Sabine, & Krämer, Nicole: Expanding social identity theory for research in media effects: Two international studies and a theoretical model.
HAFOS Nr. 79 2007
Boy, Regina, & Witte, Erich H.: Do Group Discussions Serve an Educational Purpose? HAFOS Nr. 80
2008
Müller, Saskia, & Koschate, Anne-Christin: Second Life: Neuer Markt oder vergänglicher Hype?
HAFOS Nr. 81 2008
Gollan, Tobias, & Witte, Erich H.: A Conceptual Analysis of Justification of Action and the Introduction of the Prescriptive Attribution Concept.
HAFOS Nr. 82 2008
Witte, Erich H., Mölders, Christina, & van Quaquebeke, Niels: Wirtschaftspsychologie und Einkommensteuergesetz: Als wie gerecht Bürger Ausnahmen bewerten.
HAFOS Nr. 85 2008
Witte, Erich H., & Kahl, Cara H.: Small Group Performance: Reinterpreting Proximate Evaluations from an Ultimate Perspective
HAFOS Nr. 86 2008
Witte, Erich H., Mölders, Christina, & van Quaquebeke, Niels: Gerechtigkeit durch Sonderbehandlung? Wie Bürger Ausnahmeregelungen im Einkommensteuer-gesetz bewerten.
HAFOS Nr. 87 2009
Witte, Erich H., Mölders, Christina, & Peytsch, Oliver: Gerechte Einkommensteuerhöhe: Das Verhältnis von Erwartung, Wunsch und Wirklichkeit.
HAFOS Nr. 88 2009
Witte, Erich H., Vetter, Susanne, & Mölders, Christina: Selbst für Experten zu kompliziert? Wie Steuerberater die Gerechtigkeitsverwirklichung im Einkommensteuergesetz beurteilen.
HAFOS Nr. 89 2010
Witte, Erich H. & Brandt, Valerie C.: Social Psychological Research: The Comparison of Four Journals.
